Characterization of SotA and SotB, Two <i>Erwinia chrysanthemi</i> Proteins Which Modify Isopropyl-β- <scp>d</scp> -Thiogalactopyranoside and Lactose Induction of the <i>Escherichia coli lac</i> Promoter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The expression, in Escherichia coli, of variants of the Erwinia chrysanthemi secretion genes outB and outS under the Ptac promoter is toxic to the cells. During attempts to clone E. chrysanthemi genes able to suppress this toxicity, I identified two genes, sotA and sotB, whose products are able to reduce the isopropyl-beta-D-thiogalactopyranoside (IPTG) induction of the E. coli lac promoter. SotA and SotB belong to two different families of the major facilitator superfamily. SotA is a member of the sugar efflux transporter family, while SotB belongs to the multidrug efflux family. The results presented here suggest that SotA and SotB are sugar efflux pumps. SotA reduces the intracellular concentration of IPTG, lactose, and arabinose. SotB reduces the concentration of IPTG, lactose, and melibiose. Expression of sotA and sotB is not regulated by their substrates, but sotA is activated by the cyclic AMP receptor protein (CRP), while sotB is repressed by CRP. Lactose is weakly toxic for E. chrysanthemi. This toxicity is increased in a sotB mutant which cannot efficiently efflux lactose. This first evidence for a physiological role of sugar efflux proteins suggests that their function could be to reduce the intracellular concentration of toxic sugars or sugar metabolites.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".